We’d like to know a bit more about you, so we can come to your place while you’re asleep and rifle through your fridge for premium cold cuts. No, seriously, we’d be grateful if you complete the survey linked below to give us some insight into who listens to us. Although we won’t turn down prosciutto, if you have it.
Yo, how pumped are you right now? In this week’s episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the history and procedure of impeachment for federal government employees, including how it works (i.e. Congress), what standards are used during the process (i.e. basically none), and the likelihood that it happens to the current president (i.e. probably not). Did that last line kill your buzz? Sorry, dude. It’ll be OK. There’s some jokes about bacon if that helps. Law starts at (02:35).
This week’s episode takes a practical look at the law to see how three cases influence practicing lawyers on a day to day basis. As they often do, things went on and off the rails, so this week’s episode breaks down as follows:
(0:00-02:40) – How is Nazim/How you will know the podcast has ended.
(02:40-19:20) – Attorney check-in/What judges do/Brett and Nazim are bad restaurant employees
(19:20-end) – Lee v. U.S. (is a guilty plea reversible when the lawyer gives wrong info about deportation), Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Heager (must attorney fee sanctions be causally related to the bad conduct) and Midland Funding v. Johnson (are time-barred filings in bankruptcy court a violation of the FDCA).
This week’s episode takes a look back at every 2017 case where Justice Gorsuch submitted a vote to gauge how conservative the new Justice is in respect to the rest of the bench. Brett and Nazim discuss what it means to be “conservative” and/or “liberal”, and how the outcome of certain cases can reflect differently on the ideology that supports that outcome. You won’t believe it, but the law starts from the very beginning.
Please answer each question in the comments of either this post, our twitter account (@citizenscotus), or our Facebook page. Once you’ve posted your answer, Brett will tell your Justice as a reply. Please do not feel obligated to provide context for your answer, as a simple yes, no, or a, b, & c will suffice. Also, while your surrounding experience is certainly nice to know, the key with these questions is how you would react in context, so even if you like curdled milk chicken, the key is that recipe is gross. These answers are for entertainment only, and should not be used to figure out which cases you should be cagey about during your eventual Senate Confirmation hearings.
1. You are a Justice on the Supreme Court. A case has come before you asking to overturn Citizens United on grounds that the first decision was wrong. It is split 4-4. Do you cast the vote to overturn the law?
2. Same question as above, but it’s 8-0 in favor of keeping Citizens United as is. Do you cast the same vote?
3. You are playing a board game with a child that you like. The rules of the game require you to take an action that would win the game and likely upset the child, or you could ignore the rules and let the child win. Do you change the rules?
4. You are a Justice on the Supreme Court. A State defendant sentenced to death is appealing his decision on grounds that a procedural issue (an issue that went toward how the trial was conducted, and not whether the person was guilty/not guilty) was denied at his lower trial. All previous decisions have said the procedural issue was denied and that a rule was broken, but that it would not have affected the outcome. Assuming that is true, would you overturn the conviction?
5. You are making dinner for someone you care about and you are trying an international recipe for a meal you’ve never eaten before. The recipe is from an Anthony Bourdain cookbook. The recipe (made for 2 people) features chicken and asks you to include 3 cups of grapefruit juice and 2 spoonfuls of whole milk. Do you follow the recipe as is?
6. If no, do you remove an ingredient, add less of an ingredient, or make something different? If yes, and the recipe is bad, who do you blame?
7. Congress passes a law that gives everyone amnesty for low level State drug crimes. This law is challenged by only three States for infringing on State rights, even though it would free thousands of incarcerated minorities and 47 States prefer it. Assuming all of that is true, would you vote to strike the law?
8. You are a Justice on the Supreme Court and you are asked to decide whether the President can ban trans people from the military. Which is the best statement on how you would vote?
A. President can never do this.
B. President can always do this even if it the only stated reason is trans people are a distraction.
C. President could do this if the only stated reason is there is a cost for trans military members that is above and beyond on-trans military members. The cost a fraction of the military budget but everyone agrees it is there.
9. You are going to the movies with 6 friends. Three friends, all people you like a lot, want to see the new Fast and Furious movie. Two other friends, including your significant other and a person you don’t like, want to see a 2.5 hour indie movie that may win an academy award. They cannot decide and ask you to buy the first ticket, and they will all see whatever you buy. Which ticket do you buy?
A. Fast and the Furious
B. The indie film
C. Something else that only you want to see.
10. A class action lawsuit has been filed against a company for abusive practices in student loan debt collection. This lawsuit will likely assist past and future graduates manage student loan debt. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, but did not serve the defendant with the Complaint within 120 days as required by the Federal Civil Rules. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s case even though the Complaint was served 15 days later and the defendant knew the case had begun. In addition, if the case is dismissed now, it cannot be refilled due to Statute of Limitations concerns. Assuming all that is true, do you vote to dismiss the case?
In this mini-episode, Brett gives Nazim a Buzzfeed style quiz to determine which Supreme Court justice he most resembles. If you are starved for similar insight, please visit our twitter, facebook and/or website to learn your judicial spirit animal.
This week’s podcast plays a game of whether three recent Supreme Court decisions are unreasonable extensions of the law for the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), eminent domain (Wisconsin v. Murr), and Brady material (Turner v. U.S.). For each case, Brett and Nazim try to figure out if the law has changed, and whether each decision could lead to ridiculous outcomes in the future. Law starts at (01:24).
Brett and Nazim discuss the recent story that President Trump wants to pardon himself, and while they agree he probably can’t, they disagree on why not.
This week covers a trio of issues both generally and specifically related to the Trump Presidency. Brett and Nazim cover (1) the legal ramifications of the Donald Trump Jr. email scandal, (2) the Supreme Court’s ruling im Maslenjak v. U.S., which considered the materiality of falsehoods on an immigration application, and then (3) the case of Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute, a case for next term which considers whether Ohio can purge registered voters who fail to vote for six years. Law starts at (03:54).
In 1971, the Supreme Court established the Court’s ability to create an independent tort claim for Constitutional violations when no such claim was created by Congress. Over 40 years later, the Court is still trying to put the genie back in the bottle, most recently with the Court’s holding in Ziglar v. Abasi, which denied Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to sue government agents. Brett and Nazim go through the history of Bivens claims and how the current Court has changed the original test. Law starts generally from the beginning, but Bivens specific at (07:00).
Good new for this week’s podcast, there’s a new fantasy Supreme Court champ, bad news for this week’s podcast, the police are shooting people. This week’s ushers in our Third Annual Summit on Guns by covering the cases of Hernandez v. Mesa (shooting across the Mexican border), and Los Angeles v. Mendez (shooting after not adequately announcing you were police). Fantasy announcement starts at (03:05); Law starts at (07:37).
